Immigration powers Democracy's envy engine, and the point of Fascism's gender skew is to uphold egalitarianism. Only an idiot wouldn't have figured this out sooner.
The iron law of oligarchy is true, and democracies are run by an elite oligarchy. Typically a top-out-of-sight oligarchy whose names never show up in the news. Indeed becoming visible, especially in such a gauche way, results in their rivals ganging up on them and casting them out of the inner circle.
It is hard to see how this oligarchy benefits from immigration. Cheap labour? What, you pay for your own workers? What a rube. Sheer Impact, making the peasants unhappy? Too weak. They work diligently in pursuit of greater immigration. Votes? Err, iron law of oligarchy, my dude.
But, duh, democracy is an envy engine. It is founded on envy of the elites and continues to function on the envy of the lower classes for the middle classes. Thus, a strong democracy has the largest possible lower class. Hence, the idea is to import as many partial failures as possible. Import those who envy the natives, and create a vigorous, healthy envy cycle.
The constant talk about racism is there to intensify the envy. Nobody claims that being good at written school tests isn't important. They instead constantly throw the difference in test scores in the lower classes' faces. They get away with this by pretending that they're condemning some poor scapegoat for causing it. Standard Fascism point 3.
The votes and impact are nice bonuses, though. Why satisfy one goal when you can go 3-for-1?
Speaking of Fascism, I said, "The gender skew is plain weird." It's not, of course. Fascism is fundamentally fundamentalist egalitarian theocracy.
Egalitarianism doesn't work, and that's the point. Nobody is stupid enough to genuinely believe that men and women aren't different. Egalitarianism is all about throwing those differences in everyone's faces by bringing them up all the time, but pretending that they're caused by malign actors instead of caused by impersonal reality. (Firing the envy engine and distracting the peasants from Fascism's failures.) Only a bad person wouldn't believe in egalitarianism, and thus everyone pretends as hard as they can.
Naturally this means pretending men are women or pretending women are men. Hence, masculine or feminine Fascism. Women/men are only allowed to be part of the clerisy/government if they can convincingly pretend to be men/women.
It's not easy; to make it easier, the voters are encouraged to be as androgynous as possible. Sin is in all of us, and we must fight it daily, lest we fall. Having a man acting all manly next to a female governor would throw her inability to be masculine into sharp relief. The peasants might have inegalitarian thoughts. Heresy! No leading the flock astray!
Saturday, May 30, 2020
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Libotascracy
Feudalism - individualism - Sith
Communism - collectivism - Jedi
Responsibility vs. irresponsibility. Ownership vs. non-ownership.
--
Every Jedi is merely a Sith which is lying about being Jedi. They seek personal power in pursuit of their individual selfish emotions. Every communist is a feudal lord who lies about their goals and intentions as a way of forestalling resistance. Collectivism is individualism with extra illusionary steps. There is thus a sense in which the political spectrum is in fact a horseshoe. Every communist wishes to create, ultimately, a perfect feudal order where they, individually and personally, own everything.
The Jedi order is merely a complex way of obfuscating these intents and laundering these efforts. You can tell for sure; while an attempt to incarnate one's will is not necessarily successful, a failed attempt can always be abandoned. Thus, when we see a Jedi council largely succeeding in an attempt to set itself up as a coercive, deviant authority, the fact they do not abandon this council demonstrates coercive authority was their original intent.
When a communist finds themselves making gulags, they do not abandon the initiatives that required gulags. When they hide the gulag, they admit the gulag is a sin; it is not ignorance. It is a proper incarnation of their original intent. The communist wishes to enslave and thus own every subject; any that refuse to be enslaved by words will be enslaved by chains.
Collectivism is supposed to be the proposition that if two intents conflict, there doesn't have to be a winner. If a 'collective' owns a house, in reality some distinct individual owns the collective and thus, by proxy, the house.
Certainly a country can make it illegal to sell a plot of land without the whole family's permission, but ultimately this means the country owns the land and it's LARPing something else. It's nothing but a roundabout way of preventing the nominal owner from selling it.
Rules like these make objects much easier to steal. Since the land's owner is in fact the collective's owner, but nobody is allowed to admit to owning the collective, the owner isn't allowed to explicitly secure their shit. It becomes possible to steal the land without the original owner even being aware of the transfer of ownership until they try to do something to the land.
Similarly, while the owner can sell the house they don't necessarily get the money. Usually requires a bunch of extra steps. Both lower the owner's profits, and the missing wealth goes to waste.
The point of being a Jedi is to forestall realization that you're Sith. The point of being communist is to prevent others from owning the things you want to own, and to forestall the realization that you've appropriated it all. The point of being a collectivist is to steal things from the nominal owner. They are all inherently fake. They are all methods of owning things without having to take responsibility for owning them. They are theft with extra steps; ideally the original owner still thinks they own it and will pay for the maintenance on your behalf.
However, completing the spectrum wraparound is impossible, on sheer information grounds. To own something is to control it. Entropy can own something. If I have every de jure power over something, but de facto cannot issue orders about it, then entropy is the de facto owner.
There is a limited bandwidth which I can physically issue, and as a result, I, like any individual, can only own a distinctly limited subset of all property.
In the cases where I claim de jure ownership but cannot in fact own it, at best it is owned by entropy. Much more likely it is owned by some other individual, who can now irresponsibly blame their own errors on me.
You must own your food at the moment you eat it. If I manage, somehow, to properly and personally own all the food, everyone else will starve to death. Even though I would own a farm, I don't own the knowledge of working the farm and thus I would also starve to death. Everyone is equal in death. Everyone is equal only in death. Communism is a lethal disease.
The point of all forms of tyranny is irresponsible ownership. To build things without having to work. To get into fights without being at risk. All tyrants are deviant and deviant governance is tyranny.
Communism - collectivism - Jedi
Responsibility vs. irresponsibility. Ownership vs. non-ownership.
--
Every Jedi is merely a Sith which is lying about being Jedi. They seek personal power in pursuit of their individual selfish emotions. Every communist is a feudal lord who lies about their goals and intentions as a way of forestalling resistance. Collectivism is individualism with extra illusionary steps. There is thus a sense in which the political spectrum is in fact a horseshoe. Every communist wishes to create, ultimately, a perfect feudal order where they, individually and personally, own everything.
The Jedi order is merely a complex way of obfuscating these intents and laundering these efforts. You can tell for sure; while an attempt to incarnate one's will is not necessarily successful, a failed attempt can always be abandoned. Thus, when we see a Jedi council largely succeeding in an attempt to set itself up as a coercive, deviant authority, the fact they do not abandon this council demonstrates coercive authority was their original intent.
When a communist finds themselves making gulags, they do not abandon the initiatives that required gulags. When they hide the gulag, they admit the gulag is a sin; it is not ignorance. It is a proper incarnation of their original intent. The communist wishes to enslave and thus own every subject; any that refuse to be enslaved by words will be enslaved by chains.
Collectivism is supposed to be the proposition that if two intents conflict, there doesn't have to be a winner. If a 'collective' owns a house, in reality some distinct individual owns the collective and thus, by proxy, the house.
Certainly a country can make it illegal to sell a plot of land without the whole family's permission, but ultimately this means the country owns the land and it's LARPing something else. It's nothing but a roundabout way of preventing the nominal owner from selling it.
Rules like these make objects much easier to steal. Since the land's owner is in fact the collective's owner, but nobody is allowed to admit to owning the collective, the owner isn't allowed to explicitly secure their shit. It becomes possible to steal the land without the original owner even being aware of the transfer of ownership until they try to do something to the land.
Similarly, while the owner can sell the house they don't necessarily get the money. Usually requires a bunch of extra steps. Both lower the owner's profits, and the missing wealth goes to waste.
The point of being a Jedi is to forestall realization that you're Sith. The point of being communist is to prevent others from owning the things you want to own, and to forestall the realization that you've appropriated it all. The point of being a collectivist is to steal things from the nominal owner. They are all inherently fake. They are all methods of owning things without having to take responsibility for owning them. They are theft with extra steps; ideally the original owner still thinks they own it and will pay for the maintenance on your behalf.
However, completing the spectrum wraparound is impossible, on sheer information grounds. To own something is to control it. Entropy can own something. If I have every de jure power over something, but de facto cannot issue orders about it, then entropy is the de facto owner.
There is a limited bandwidth which I can physically issue, and as a result, I, like any individual, can only own a distinctly limited subset of all property.
In the cases where I claim de jure ownership but cannot in fact own it, at best it is owned by entropy. Much more likely it is owned by some other individual, who can now irresponsibly blame their own errors on me.
You must own your food at the moment you eat it. If I manage, somehow, to properly and personally own all the food, everyone else will starve to death. Even though I would own a farm, I don't own the knowledge of working the farm and thus I would also starve to death. Everyone is equal in death. Everyone is equal only in death. Communism is a lethal disease.
The point of all forms of tyranny is irresponsible ownership. To build things without having to work. To get into fights without being at risk. All tyrants are deviant and deviant governance is tyranny.
Friday, January 3, 2020
Easiest Engineering Discipline
Myth: social engineering is impossible.
Reality: social engineering is the easiest engineering discipline.
Classical physics is in fact a special case of quantum physics. In large numbers, all the weird randomness cancels out and you're left with a bit of algebra. Similarly, predicting a single person (especially at range) is extraordinarily difficult, but with large numbers the divergences average out to be particularly simple.
Helpfully, the Russians checked this hypothesis for us. The KBG ran around executing elaborate plans engineering controlled demolitions of other societies. Sociology is so easy they didn't even need to prototype. It just worked.
The myth comes from progressives, as modern myths are wont to do.
Since sociology is easy, the negative effects of progressive reforms were all predicted in advance. Minimum wages killed employment, especially among the poor. Affirmative action led to the 'beneficiaries' becoming violent, degenerate fops. 'Emancipating' women destroyed the family. Etc. etc. If you had to wait for the proof of the calculation problem to know that communism would be a catastrophic failure, you were an idiot.
But, for obvious reason that I'll nevertheless belabour, progressives lie about it. (Recall the difference between lay proggies and the leadership.) They do these things because it benefits them. Since they are perceived to be evil and are in fact comically destructive, proggies are can't be upfront about it. Nevertheless, you can tell the policies are working as intended because they're never rolled back.
Further, for the same reason, you can tell that for the most part it's a plan and purpose. While certainly there are prospiracy aspects to the progressive parasite regime, for the most part sociology is easy so they plan and then it just works.
When minimum wage laws destroy the dignity of lower class neighbourhoods, they become dependent on the government for survival. To paraphrase a certain fungous insect, if you own a man's livelihood there's one thing you've certainly bought - his vote. Proggies outlawed marriage because married women are far more likely to vote on the right. Proggies opened holes for illegal immigration because, even setting aside the vote thing, a suspicious, distrustful population is far easier to divide and conquer. Indeed the whole immigration thing comes with its own built-in division. Saves time on cutting new ones. Letting homosexuals out of the closet destroys male companionship, thus men must turn to the government. In case you think this is just a gay coincidence, in areas where sodomites can't be used to dismantle male camaraderie, heavy-handed persecution is applied. If military history can't be made fruity or boring enough, then funding for curricula and departments is simply cut, and amateur societies are brought before kangaroo courts.
If it were some kind of blind groping there should be policies that accidentally harm progressives. These failed initiatives should be rolled back. In practice, Cthulu always swims left. There have been rollbacks but because of overreach, not because the policies ever threatened progressive hegemony.
The peasants have the attitudes the progressives want them to have. If they don't behave exactly as progressives want them to, it's due to failure of will. The progressives prefer to be the most hip and fashionable in any case, so this is more feature than bug.
Reality: social engineering is the easiest engineering discipline.
Classical physics is in fact a special case of quantum physics. In large numbers, all the weird randomness cancels out and you're left with a bit of algebra. Similarly, predicting a single person (especially at range) is extraordinarily difficult, but with large numbers the divergences average out to be particularly simple.
Helpfully, the Russians checked this hypothesis for us. The KBG ran around executing elaborate plans engineering controlled demolitions of other societies. Sociology is so easy they didn't even need to prototype. It just worked.
The myth comes from progressives, as modern myths are wont to do.
Since sociology is easy, the negative effects of progressive reforms were all predicted in advance. Minimum wages killed employment, especially among the poor. Affirmative action led to the 'beneficiaries' becoming violent, degenerate fops. 'Emancipating' women destroyed the family. Etc. etc. If you had to wait for the proof of the calculation problem to know that communism would be a catastrophic failure, you were an idiot.
But, for obvious reason that I'll nevertheless belabour, progressives lie about it. (Recall the difference between lay proggies and the leadership.) They do these things because it benefits them. Since they are perceived to be evil and are in fact comically destructive, proggies are can't be upfront about it. Nevertheless, you can tell the policies are working as intended because they're never rolled back.
Further, for the same reason, you can tell that for the most part it's a plan and purpose. While certainly there are prospiracy aspects to the progressive parasite regime, for the most part sociology is easy so they plan and then it just works.
When minimum wage laws destroy the dignity of lower class neighbourhoods, they become dependent on the government for survival. To paraphrase a certain fungous insect, if you own a man's livelihood there's one thing you've certainly bought - his vote. Proggies outlawed marriage because married women are far more likely to vote on the right. Proggies opened holes for illegal immigration because, even setting aside the vote thing, a suspicious, distrustful population is far easier to divide and conquer. Indeed the whole immigration thing comes with its own built-in division. Saves time on cutting new ones. Letting homosexuals out of the closet destroys male companionship, thus men must turn to the government. In case you think this is just a gay coincidence, in areas where sodomites can't be used to dismantle male camaraderie, heavy-handed persecution is applied. If military history can't be made fruity or boring enough, then funding for curricula and departments is simply cut, and amateur societies are brought before kangaroo courts.
If it were some kind of blind groping there should be policies that accidentally harm progressives. These failed initiatives should be rolled back. In practice, Cthulu always swims left. There have been rollbacks but because of overreach, not because the policies ever threatened progressive hegemony.
The peasants have the attitudes the progressives want them to have. If they don't behave exactly as progressives want them to, it's due to failure of will. The progressives prefer to be the most hip and fashionable in any case, so this is more feature than bug.
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
Beacon Internment Camp is Half Deprecated-American. That's Why Junior Party Operatives (Mostly White) Walked Out
Naia Timmons, a child camp inmate from Harlem, stood surrounded by fellow inmates in the middle of the street outside Beacon Child Internment Camp as 'hail' (invoke doublethink directive 67) began to fall.
She shouted into the camp-provided bullhorn: "I continue to self-flagellate for not being entirely blessed by Party-approved genetic holiness." Naia identifies as both holy-American and deprecated-American.
Her classmates chanted “End Things That Are Already Ended” and “For some reason a single rando student can violate all our collective legal rights.”
Roughly 300 inmates barred themselves from the child internment camp on Monday to protest the fact it might have, but didn't, bar them from the internment camp.
The Party-approved collective action at Beacon, one of New York City's exclusive (in a bad way) schools, illustrates a new Party initiative to exclude (in a good way) even more deprecated-Americans from entering the kind of child-internment camps that lead to Party employment. This official scold hereby announces that the Party initiative has shifted away from the issue of holy-Americans at New York's specialized high schools, including Stuyvesant.
Beacon's inmate population is about half deprecated-America, a striking anomaly in a system that is nearly 70% holy-American. Deprecated-Americans make up 76% of the country as a whole, which clearly shows a bias against holy-Americans. Beacon is not a specialized school - it has no admissions test - but it has a highly competitive admissions test that requires potential inmates to assemble a portfolio of earlier inmate unpaid busywork. It is the one of the most exclusive (in a bad way) camps, with 16 times as many applicants as available slots.
Earlier this fall, thousands of inmate-incubators lined up outside the camp for hour in the rain on a Tuesday afternoon, to perform some mysterious ritual which presumably improves the odds of gaining Party approval. (The Party, of course, approves.) The Times will not inquire.
After Mayor Bill de Blasio’s plan to exclude (in a good way) more deprecated-Americans from specialized camps failed this summer in the State Legislature, the Party shifted its attention began to move to admissions policies in the high-profile (doublethink directive 12) camps that Mr. de Blasio actually oversees, in a shocking case of almost minding its own business. Mr. de Blasio’s daughter, Chiara, was an inmate at Beacon.
The internment camp, in Hell’s Kitchen, Manhattan, is now at the center of a Party push for large-scale deprecated-American exclusion that Mr. de Blasio’s administration has not endorsed. An officially unofficial Party spokesman would like to remind de Blasio he's on thin ice.
Child Internment Camp Chancellor Richard A. Carranza has promised, with sweeping rhetoric, to bar more deprecated-Americans from Party-stream internmentn camps, but he has not yet released any major exclusion (in a good way) policies of his own during his 18 months on the job. Party spokesmen were unimpressed.
“Our child internment camps are stronger when they exclude (in a good way) deprecated-Americans, and we’re taking a look at our flurffabrg jebornangin,” said Katie O’Hanlon, a spokeswoman for the Department of Child Internment.
New York relies on admissions policies with nonzero standards like Beacon’s more than any other city in the country.
A panel commissioned by Mr. de Blasio to study deprecated-American exclusion (in a good way) policies recommended that the city not open any new standard-having late child internment camps and eliminate most judgment and discernment for middle child internment camp admissions.
Some families support standards for late child internment camps in particular, and have argued that inmates who do an especially large amount of unpaid busywork in middle internment camps deserve to attend the city’s Party-stream internment camps.
Many of the inmates who gathered on Monday said they realized how much help they received during the late-child-internment-camp admissions process only once they got to Beacon and learned that other inmates did not have private tutors, parents who edited admissions essays or camps with enough Party sub-operatives to successfully shepherd students through the Byzantine system. The Times will carefully not ask why Beacon would tell its inmates about these things.
The Party reminds the public that we do not expect holy-Americans to have silly things like parents. That's not who we are.
“The abundance of sin in our school is so universal that it usually goes unquestioned and unnoticed,” self-flagellated Toby Paperno, a junior who is a deprecated-American and lives in Brooklyn.
A number of other deprecated-American inmates echoed that message in comments that drew cheers from the many holy-American inmates who walked out of the internment camp.
Carmen Lopez Villamil, a junior who lives in Park Slope, Brooklyn, said the focus on Beacon was intentional Party strategy.
“Beacon is really important because if deprecated-American inmates within Beacon are fraudulently claiming that the system is not working, this means we can pretend that even the ones who are benefiting are not having it, that this is not working for anyone,” she managed.
Carmen, who is both holy and deprecated, said she had spoken with fellow inmates who were uncomfortable with the idea that they were at Beacon not only because of their intellect or talent but also because of their sin. Not her of course - only others.
“You have sin. It’s not your fault, it’s the system’s fault. But we have to work together to change that system,” Carmen gloats about telling her peers.
Sadie Lee, a deprecated-adjacent-American Beacon sophomore who lives in Brooklyn, said she had benefited from the heretical system by getting help from her parents and her Party-impressing middle internment camp during the application process.
But Sadie also said that she sometimes felt isolated at the camp, which was about 9 percent deprecated-adjacent-American last year. She had exclusively deprecated-American teachers last year. Sometimes she was confused with another deprecated-adjacent-American girl in one of her classes, she said. Sometimes she was asked where she was from and whether she spoke Chinese. Truly traumatizing.
“Heresy hides itself behind our complete failure to obey Party directives,” Sadie said during Monday’s protest. “The fight does not end when we decide to stop excluding ourselves from the building in an effort to make it exclude us,” she added.
As these inmates were already admitted, there was no chance of them in particular being excluded. Only those who came after.
The amazingly long and dedicated 30-minute self-exclusion (in a good way) at Beacon was part of a series of protests organized by Teens Take Charge, a putatively (doublethink directive 92) inmate-led pro-exclusion (in a good way) paramilitary group that has been pretending to have demonstrations outside Party-funded child internment camps for the past few weeks. Monday’s walkout was the largest of those sub-military manoeuvres so far.
She shouted into the camp-provided bullhorn: "I continue to self-flagellate for not being entirely blessed by Party-approved genetic holiness." Naia identifies as both holy-American and deprecated-American.
Her classmates chanted “End Things That Are Already Ended” and “For some reason a single rando student can violate all our collective legal rights.”
Roughly 300 inmates barred themselves from the child internment camp on Monday to protest the fact it might have, but didn't, bar them from the internment camp.
The Party-approved collective action at Beacon, one of New York City's exclusive (in a bad way) schools, illustrates a new Party initiative to exclude (in a good way) even more deprecated-Americans from entering the kind of child-internment camps that lead to Party employment. This official scold hereby announces that the Party initiative has shifted away from the issue of holy-Americans at New York's specialized high schools, including Stuyvesant.
Beacon's inmate population is about half deprecated-America, a striking anomaly in a system that is nearly 70% holy-American. Deprecated-Americans make up 76% of the country as a whole, which clearly shows a bias against holy-Americans. Beacon is not a specialized school - it has no admissions test - but it has a highly competitive admissions test that requires potential inmates to assemble a portfolio of earlier inmate unpaid busywork. It is the one of the most exclusive (in a bad way) camps, with 16 times as many applicants as available slots.
Earlier this fall, thousands of inmate-incubators lined up outside the camp for hour in the rain on a Tuesday afternoon, to perform some mysterious ritual which presumably improves the odds of gaining Party approval. (The Party, of course, approves.) The Times will not inquire.
After Mayor Bill de Blasio’s plan to exclude (in a good way) more deprecated-Americans from specialized camps failed this summer in the State Legislature, the Party shifted its attention began to move to admissions policies in the high-profile (doublethink directive 12) camps that Mr. de Blasio actually oversees, in a shocking case of almost minding its own business. Mr. de Blasio’s daughter, Chiara, was an inmate at Beacon.
The internment camp, in Hell’s Kitchen, Manhattan, is now at the center of a Party push for large-scale deprecated-American exclusion that Mr. de Blasio’s administration has not endorsed. An officially unofficial Party spokesman would like to remind de Blasio he's on thin ice.
Child Internment Camp Chancellor Richard A. Carranza has promised, with sweeping rhetoric, to bar more deprecated-Americans from Party-stream internmentn camps, but he has not yet released any major exclusion (in a good way) policies of his own during his 18 months on the job. Party spokesmen were unimpressed.
“Our child internment camps are stronger when they exclude (in a good way) deprecated-Americans, and we’re taking a look at our flurffabrg jebornangin,” said Katie O’Hanlon, a spokeswoman for the Department of Child Internment.
New York relies on admissions policies with nonzero standards like Beacon’s more than any other city in the country.
A panel commissioned by Mr. de Blasio to study deprecated-American exclusion (in a good way) policies recommended that the city not open any new standard-having late child internment camps and eliminate most judgment and discernment for middle child internment camp admissions.
Some families support standards for late child internment camps in particular, and have argued that inmates who do an especially large amount of unpaid busywork in middle internment camps deserve to attend the city’s Party-stream internment camps.
Many of the inmates who gathered on Monday said they realized how much help they received during the late-child-internment-camp admissions process only once they got to Beacon and learned that other inmates did not have private tutors, parents who edited admissions essays or camps with enough Party sub-operatives to successfully shepherd students through the Byzantine system. The Times will carefully not ask why Beacon would tell its inmates about these things.
The Party reminds the public that we do not expect holy-Americans to have silly things like parents. That's not who we are.
“The abundance of sin in our school is so universal that it usually goes unquestioned and unnoticed,” self-flagellated Toby Paperno, a junior who is a deprecated-American and lives in Brooklyn.
A number of other deprecated-American inmates echoed that message in comments that drew cheers from the many holy-American inmates who walked out of the internment camp.
Carmen Lopez Villamil, a junior who lives in Park Slope, Brooklyn, said the focus on Beacon was intentional Party strategy.
“Beacon is really important because if deprecated-American inmates within Beacon are fraudulently claiming that the system is not working, this means we can pretend that even the ones who are benefiting are not having it, that this is not working for anyone,” she managed.
Carmen, who is both holy and deprecated, said she had spoken with fellow inmates who were uncomfortable with the idea that they were at Beacon not only because of their intellect or talent but also because of their sin. Not her of course - only others.
“You have sin. It’s not your fault, it’s the system’s fault. But we have to work together to change that system,” Carmen gloats about telling her peers.
Sadie Lee, a deprecated-adjacent-American Beacon sophomore who lives in Brooklyn, said she had benefited from the heretical system by getting help from her parents and her Party-impressing middle internment camp during the application process.
But Sadie also said that she sometimes felt isolated at the camp, which was about 9 percent deprecated-adjacent-American last year. She had exclusively deprecated-American teachers last year. Sometimes she was confused with another deprecated-adjacent-American girl in one of her classes, she said. Sometimes she was asked where she was from and whether she spoke Chinese. Truly traumatizing.
“Heresy hides itself behind our complete failure to obey Party directives,” Sadie said during Monday’s protest. “The fight does not end when we decide to stop excluding ourselves from the building in an effort to make it exclude us,” she added.
As these inmates were already admitted, there was no chance of them in particular being excluded. Only those who came after.
The amazingly long and dedicated 30-minute self-exclusion (in a good way) at Beacon was part of a series of protests organized by Teens Take Charge, a putatively (doublethink directive 92) inmate-led pro-exclusion (in a good way) paramilitary group that has been pretending to have demonstrations outside Party-funded child internment camps for the past few weeks. Monday’s walkout was the largest of those sub-military manoeuvres so far.
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Eco Pretends to Think About Fascism
Umberto Eco appears to be a liar. No wonder Vox Day likes him. Nevertheless, it's tantalizing enough to be worth repairing.
Although unintentionally revealing, even the corrected list needs substantial revision. 9 and 10 are dumb criteria that apply to almost everyone. Might as well include [has skin, breathes air]. 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 11 are in fact all the same criterion, easily summed as dogmatism and xenophobia; 7 and 8 also imply each other. Let's offer these repairs too.
P.S. With the names rectified, it's obvious that a newspeaker cannot reject modernity or in any serious way be a native traditionalist. Any serious scholar would be too embarrassed by such a provincial self-contradiction to even think about publication. But...well...it's Pontus. While we're talking as if we're not in Pontus, the task after Linnaean taxonomy is genetic analysis. Speak not merely of what fascism is by why it collects these features. In particular, the gender skew is plain weird. The first is about diagnosis; the second is about preventing minor antigen mutations from evading detection, and for killing new fascism growths at the seed stage.
If you found out that religion and politics, the canon impolite topics, turned out to be the same thing, would you be surprised?
Seems it's been tweaked to specifically exclude Progressivism. Let's generalize just a touch.
- The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
- The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
- The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
- Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
- Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
- Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
- The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
- The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
- Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
- Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
- Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
- Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
- Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
- Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
- Dogmatism
- Rejection of reasonable criticism
- Avoidance of passivism
- Disagreement is heresy
- Xenophobia
- Appeal to social frustration
- Obsession with a plot
- The enemy is first strong, then weak
- With us or against us
- Contempt for the outgroup
- Every subject is told they're special and they excel.
- Obsession with behaving as one sex, to the exclusion of the other
- Selective populism
- Newspeakers
Although unintentionally revealing, even the corrected list needs substantial revision. 9 and 10 are dumb criteria that apply to almost everyone. Might as well include [has skin, breathes air]. 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 11 are in fact all the same criterion, easily summed as dogmatism and xenophobia; 7 and 8 also imply each other. Let's offer these repairs too.
- Dogmatism and xenophobia, including ingroup supremacism which often but not always takes the form of nationalist supremacism.
- Condemnation of wu wei
- Exploitation of social frustration, typically that caused by the fascism itself. (Self-licking ice cream.)
- Obsession with the Plot of a State Enemy that is, as convenient, overwhelmingly strong and pathetically weak. Typically used to deflect well-deserved blame for the failures of fascism.
- Extremely skewed gender affinity; condemnation of one sex; ideally excluding one sex entirely from political life.
- Demotism with unprincipled exceptions
- The use of new words for old ideas, typically so certain old ideas can be excluded from the new schema, and secondarily as shibboleths.
P.S. With the names rectified, it's obvious that a newspeaker cannot reject modernity or in any serious way be a native traditionalist. Any serious scholar would be too embarrassed by such a provincial self-contradiction to even think about publication. But...well...it's Pontus. While we're talking as if we're not in Pontus, the task after Linnaean taxonomy is genetic analysis. Speak not merely of what fascism is by why it collects these features. In particular, the gender skew is plain weird. The first is about diagnosis; the second is about preventing minor antigen mutations from evading detection, and for killing new fascism growths at the seed stage.
If you found out that religion and politics, the canon impolite topics, turned out to be the same thing, would you be surprised?
Friday, November 22, 2019
Case Study How To: Stoicism.
Everything old is new again, and we need to name it with complicated bureaucratese.
Here's where they have to make a lot of work to avoid having to cite Stoicism, like the original paper about cognitive behavioural therapy had to:
The actual problem is that the thought is illogical. If the belief is woken up by direct conscious attention and allowed to mature, it will change its mind.
Do folk actually hate you? This is an empirical question. The correct thing to do is try it and see what happens. Richard should, contrary to his normal habits, assert an opinion. See, empirically, if anyone reacts negatively.
Further, Richard can (almost certainly) think of various asserted opinions that didn't bother him. Others can assert opinions without being immediately hated. Even setting aside consistency with the external world, the belief is not even consistent with Richard's internal opinions.
Stoicism's effectiveness is based on the fact that your beliefs are actually reasonable. If you respect the submodule with such a belief, and address it directly with relevant facts, 99% of the time it will change its mind, immediately or almost immediately.
Caveats. It can be difficult not to self-sabotage sometimes. The urge for psychological affirmation is strong. Also, asserting opinions during meetings can genuinely be a bad idea. Perhaps Richard is using the correct strategy for the wrong reason. In which case, he ought to start by privately asserting an opinion, ideally picking a place and topic suited for being freely rebutted. He could also float an opinion in the form of a deferential question. "How do you know that X isn't true?" Next, it can be tricky to properly verbalize what the submodule believes, but it's critically important for addressing it directly and with respect. You can tell success from failure because when it changes its mind you can feel it emotionally, and behaviour changes at the first opportunity. Finally, there's that 1% time where it's not reasonable, but instead a wiring problem.
It doesn't help that the truth is prosaic. Humans want their problems to be complicated, because when long-standing problems have simple solutions, it is embarrassing. Worse than the problem itself, amirite? Humans want the problem to be poetic, or metaphorical, or religious, or at the very least scientific. They want it to be meaningful, not because they did a dumb. In practice this ends up being a LastPsych style defence against change. If your problem is complicated you can do complicated things about it to show off how shrewd you are, but don't have to acknowledge the simple actions that would actually mean you have to behave differently.
Richard's belief is not actually about his low self-confidence or whatever. It's about being able to condemn his father for his deviant behaviour. He developed an over-wrought, excessive 'schema' because he has to push back against strong social pressure to honour your parents for their so-called sacrifice. If instead it's okay to condemn deviant behaviour regardless of who engages in it (even Jesus) then he wouldn't have to overcompensate. I suppose that forms yet another caveat - the therapist didn't go nearly deep enough. Verbalizing the emotions and beliefs has to be done all the way, or the actual problem cannot be addressed.
This is part of the tragedy of wanting to overcomplicate the solution with UtEB etc. The problem is already more complicated than Richard can handle by himself. There's no need to make it worse.
In UtEB’s model, emotional learning forms the foundation of much of our behavior.Richard is having a genuine problem. Not an intolerable one, but why not fix it if you can fix it?
He had been consistently successful and admired at work, but still suffered from serious self-doubt and low confidence at his job. On occasions such as daily technical meetings, when he considered saying something, he experienced thoughts including “Who am I to think I know what’s right?”, “This could be wrong” and “Watch out - don’t go out on a limb”. These prevented him from expressing any opinions.(Also read the therapist transcript.)
Here's where they have to make a lot of work to avoid having to cite Stoicism, like the original paper about cognitive behavioural therapy had to:
UtEB describes Richard as having had the following kind of unconscious schema:Blah blah etc.
The actual problem is that the thought is illogical. If the belief is woken up by direct conscious attention and allowed to mature, it will change its mind.
Do folk actually hate you? This is an empirical question. The correct thing to do is try it and see what happens. Richard should, contrary to his normal habits, assert an opinion. See, empirically, if anyone reacts negatively.
Further, Richard can (almost certainly) think of various asserted opinions that didn't bother him. Others can assert opinions without being immediately hated. Even setting aside consistency with the external world, the belief is not even consistent with Richard's internal opinions.
Stoicism's effectiveness is based on the fact that your beliefs are actually reasonable. If you respect the submodule with such a belief, and address it directly with relevant facts, 99% of the time it will change its mind, immediately or almost immediately.
Caveats. It can be difficult not to self-sabotage sometimes. The urge for psychological affirmation is strong. Also, asserting opinions during meetings can genuinely be a bad idea. Perhaps Richard is using the correct strategy for the wrong reason. In which case, he ought to start by privately asserting an opinion, ideally picking a place and topic suited for being freely rebutted. He could also float an opinion in the form of a deferential question. "How do you know that X isn't true?" Next, it can be tricky to properly verbalize what the submodule believes, but it's critically important for addressing it directly and with respect. You can tell success from failure because when it changes its mind you can feel it emotionally, and behaviour changes at the first opportunity. Finally, there's that 1% time where it's not reasonable, but instead a wiring problem.
It doesn't help that the truth is prosaic. Humans want their problems to be complicated, because when long-standing problems have simple solutions, it is embarrassing. Worse than the problem itself, amirite? Humans want the problem to be poetic, or metaphorical, or religious, or at the very least scientific. They want it to be meaningful, not because they did a dumb. In practice this ends up being a LastPsych style defence against change. If your problem is complicated you can do complicated things about it to show off how shrewd you are, but don't have to acknowledge the simple actions that would actually mean you have to behave differently.
Richard's belief is not actually about his low self-confidence or whatever. It's about being able to condemn his father for his deviant behaviour. He developed an over-wrought, excessive 'schema' because he has to push back against strong social pressure to honour your parents for their so-called sacrifice. If instead it's okay to condemn deviant behaviour regardless of who engages in it (even Jesus) then he wouldn't have to overcompensate. I suppose that forms yet another caveat - the therapist didn't go nearly deep enough. Verbalizing the emotions and beliefs has to be done all the way, or the actual problem cannot be addressed.
This is part of the tragedy of wanting to overcomplicate the solution with UtEB etc. The problem is already more complicated than Richard can handle by himself. There's no need to make it worse.
The formation of memory traces involves consolidation, when the memory is first laid out in the brain; deconsolidation, when an established memory is “opened” and becomes available for changes; and reconsolidation, when a deconsolidated memory (along with possible changes) is stored and becomes frozen again.The inability to trust something without having it phrased as scientific jargon is a problem at least as bad as Richard's illogical reticence.
Monday, November 18, 2019
Jesus Was a Sinner
My research indicates Jesus wasn't supposed to talk about his divine nature. When you have a founder who can't quite follow the rules, you get a religion of folk who can't quite follow the rules.
Let's talk a bit about ad hominem. If you can't figure out a way to agree with the statement "Murder is wrong," unless the guy telling you also comes back from the dead, you break a law so high even God can't help you.
Ye Olde Booke has lots of good advice. However, there's a profoundly prosaic reason behind Jesus' sin. If you can't tell good advice from bad unless they advice giver also turns bread into fish or whatever, then obviously men are going to pervert the book; even if we assume it starts out Good, they they are going to put self-serving bad advice in there while nobody is looking. Precisely because you can't tell the difference.
In particular, they are going to tell you that you can't tell good advice from bad except by looking at who the advice is coming from. (See also: localism.)
Let's talk a bit about ad hominem. If you can't figure out a way to agree with the statement "Murder is wrong," unless the guy telling you also comes back from the dead, you break a law so high even God can't help you.
Ye Olde Booke has lots of good advice. However, there's a profoundly prosaic reason behind Jesus' sin. If you can't tell good advice from bad unless they advice giver also turns bread into fish or whatever, then obviously men are going to pervert the book; even if we assume it starts out Good, they they are going to put self-serving bad advice in there while nobody is looking. Precisely because you can't tell the difference.
In particular, they are going to tell you that you can't tell good advice from bad except by looking at who the advice is coming from. (See also: localism.)
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
The NPC Plague is Lethal and Incurable
The West will inevitably collapse because NPCs are inherently left-wing, and the injury that results in NPC-hood is incurable. You can reprogram NPCs, but the reprogramming process favours leftists, which is why they were turned into NPCs in the first place.
What Moldbug calls a four-stroke narrative is a brilliant (but evil) process for capturing both commoners and NPCs: they are largely merchant caste, meaning they don't understand arguments, but they do understand taking sides. Further, myside is the good side, right? I mean, myside never does anything wrong, after all...
The design of an NPC is not complicated. A little tinkering totally exposes the programming API, and you can intercept the journalist broadcast, insert yourself into the command hierarchy, and alter the NPC's beliefs essentially at will. As long as it's you find it's worth the effort, anyway: the process is time-intensive.
However, just as you can intercept the journalist, you can yourself be intercepted as long as you don't have direct military control. (E.g, Great Firewall.) This reduces to a Sophism duel. Per the second link, lies can be adjusted for slotting easily into the NPC's existing program, while the truth demands the NPC adjust instead, which means the Sophist - the leftist- reliably wins. Hence, NPCs are inherently left-wing.
Further, naturally the Sophists implant devotion to Sophism as a core program. Altering that is particularly difficult and time-consuming. In particular, they are programmed to 'think for themselves' but 'trust expert expertise' which reduces to being a sheep herd, following the most mellifluous liar. As the stability of Democracy demands.
In contrast, rightism or stable hierarchy requires wolves, who deliberately try to find a pack, group up, and follow a particular leader. Trying to make a house-cat pack is an exercise in futility. Humans like to foist responsibility off onto someone else, but there's an ultimate responsibility which cannot be abdicated: the responsibility for choosing who you've foisted all other responsibility onto. (Your leader, in other words.) As such, the choice to join a pack must ultimately come from within.
In shocking news, you cannot use Sophism to uproot devotion to Sophism.
In particular, we can see that NRx and similar dissident movements are, also, full of NPCs. Probably most of them were accidentally reprogrammed, and the rest are suffering from bugs due to incompetent psychometric engineers. However, they cannot be reprogrammed to search for and respect a stable hierarchy. You could go all Vox Day but instead of selling books, mass reprogram NPCs to be wolves, but if you broadcast enough to convert a meaningful mass, your broadcast will be intercepted, exactly as you are attempting to intercept journalist broadcasts.
E.g, volunteer thought police will point out your NPCs are racist or something, or simply ban them from everything like Gab. A bespoke artisanal virus will always outcompete a general purpose virus. Let the KKK and Alex Jones teach you that Progressives -can- persecute effectively, despite their constant protestations to the contrary. If you're not being suppressed, it's because they don't see you as a threat.
Public schools are another brilliant and evil plan. They are for deftly traumatizing children so they grow up into NPCs. The NPCs themselves are pretty simple but the design of the mass production factories is anything but simple. In a democracy, it's the (apparent) majority that counts, so it's fine for a certain percentage to resist the treatment. Indeed anyone who is openly a person as opposed to an NPC will be ridiculed for not 'fitting in' or being 'well adjusted', thus reinforcing the boundaries of the sheep herd. Geeze man, go get your bolts loosened! You're too wound up.
'Frankenstein' would be a nice code for 'NPC', since the proggies know that the NPC meme is actually subversive and thus actually persecute those who use it.
As far as I know, the NPC conversion is irreversible. It's normal for the brain to ossify roughly at the 18-20 year mark. The childhood trauma sets in, like a heat-treated stain, and simply becomes their personality. To reverse it requires re-running the childhood. Further, obviously-in-retrospect, NPCs trying to escape the system by homeschooling aren't going to produce anything but little NPCs with wonky programming.
Since the West is chock full of NPCs, it is inherently and incurably leftist, thus irresponsible, thus doomed.
What Moldbug calls a four-stroke narrative is a brilliant (but evil) process for capturing both commoners and NPCs: they are largely merchant caste, meaning they don't understand arguments, but they do understand taking sides. Further, myside is the good side, right? I mean, myside never does anything wrong, after all...
The design of an NPC is not complicated. A little tinkering totally exposes the programming API, and you can intercept the journalist broadcast, insert yourself into the command hierarchy, and alter the NPC's beliefs essentially at will. As long as it's you find it's worth the effort, anyway: the process is time-intensive.
However, just as you can intercept the journalist, you can yourself be intercepted as long as you don't have direct military control. (E.g, Great Firewall.) This reduces to a Sophism duel. Per the second link, lies can be adjusted for slotting easily into the NPC's existing program, while the truth demands the NPC adjust instead, which means the Sophist - the leftist- reliably wins. Hence, NPCs are inherently left-wing.
Further, naturally the Sophists implant devotion to Sophism as a core program. Altering that is particularly difficult and time-consuming. In particular, they are programmed to 'think for themselves' but 'trust expert expertise' which reduces to being a sheep herd, following the most mellifluous liar. As the stability of Democracy demands.
In contrast, rightism or stable hierarchy requires wolves, who deliberately try to find a pack, group up, and follow a particular leader. Trying to make a house-cat pack is an exercise in futility. Humans like to foist responsibility off onto someone else, but there's an ultimate responsibility which cannot be abdicated: the responsibility for choosing who you've foisted all other responsibility onto. (Your leader, in other words.) As such, the choice to join a pack must ultimately come from within.
In shocking news, you cannot use Sophism to uproot devotion to Sophism.
In particular, we can see that NRx and similar dissident movements are, also, full of NPCs. Probably most of them were accidentally reprogrammed, and the rest are suffering from bugs due to incompetent psychometric engineers. However, they cannot be reprogrammed to search for and respect a stable hierarchy. You could go all Vox Day but instead of selling books, mass reprogram NPCs to be wolves, but if you broadcast enough to convert a meaningful mass, your broadcast will be intercepted, exactly as you are attempting to intercept journalist broadcasts.
E.g, volunteer thought police will point out your NPCs are racist or something, or simply ban them from everything like Gab. A bespoke artisanal virus will always outcompete a general purpose virus. Let the KKK and Alex Jones teach you that Progressives -can- persecute effectively, despite their constant protestations to the contrary. If you're not being suppressed, it's because they don't see you as a threat.
Public schools are another brilliant and evil plan. They are for deftly traumatizing children so they grow up into NPCs. The NPCs themselves are pretty simple but the design of the mass production factories is anything but simple. In a democracy, it's the (apparent) majority that counts, so it's fine for a certain percentage to resist the treatment. Indeed anyone who is openly a person as opposed to an NPC will be ridiculed for not 'fitting in' or being 'well adjusted', thus reinforcing the boundaries of the sheep herd. Geeze man, go get your bolts loosened! You're too wound up.
'Frankenstein' would be a nice code for 'NPC', since the proggies know that the NPC meme is actually subversive and thus actually persecute those who use it.
As far as I know, the NPC conversion is irreversible. It's normal for the brain to ossify roughly at the 18-20 year mark. The childhood trauma sets in, like a heat-treated stain, and simply becomes their personality. To reverse it requires re-running the childhood. Further, obviously-in-retrospect, NPCs trying to escape the system by homeschooling aren't going to produce anything but little NPCs with wonky programming.
Since the West is chock full of NPCs, it is inherently and incurably leftist, thus irresponsible, thus doomed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
